A Michigan State Senator has proposed legislation that would ban texting or playing video games while driving, reports ClickOn Detroit.

Sen. Buzz Thomas (D), the sponsor of the measure, said:

There is no need to be sending a text while driving your car, it’s one of the most dangerous things a driver can do. If it’s really that important, pull over and send your message, or just wait until you get to where you are going.

This is the second session in which I have introduced this bill, and hopefully we can all realize the urgency and just get this passed.

I agree, if you're driving, you need to be freaking driving. Once almost had a guy drift into my lane and clip me but I was able to brake fast enough to avoid it. The guy had a cigar in one had a cell phone in the other and flipping through some papers looking for something, no hands on the wheel and only very occasionally glacing up to see what was going on.

I'm not saying we need specific laws for everythign that mght distract you but we definitely need laws saying if you're driving a car, the vast majority of your attention should be on driving not smoking, talking on a cell phone and looking for a document all at the same time.

------------------------------------

I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.

------------------------------------
I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.

Seems like a good law to pass. As Arell said, police should obviously not be spending time actively looking for this sort of thing, that would be a waste. If they happen to see someone then they can give them a fine and hopefully it will keep that person a little wary of doing it again.

I agree, no texting. Although with talking on the phone I think it should be approached diffrently. If they're speeding or driving recklessly while on the phone, pull 'em over and fine their arse. But if they're perfectly fine, I don't think it's neccasary.

I approve. Unfortunately, it might get voted down, just like a similar law in another State. It was voted against because the legislators thought it would be impossible to enforce, or would distract police from looking for more serious threats.

I say, have it on the books. IF, a police officer happens to see it occuring, then they can pull the person over. But otherwise they shouldn't go out of their way to look for it. The threat of a fine alone would stop most of these idiot drivers from doing it.

It's called distracted driving, and there's a good chance there's already a law about that on the books. There's no need to give gaming and texting higher penalties just because they're gaming and texting. It'd be like putting a higher penalty on eating a sandwich while driving, because it's eating a sandwich.

Over here in the UK, it is only enforced by police and probably requires them to have caught them on the onboard dash-camera to prove it. In the case of phones and texting etc, a recent case has proven that looking at your sent message logs which are obtained by police in an investigation can prove if you were distracted in the run up to any accident if a phone is found at the scene.

What a great way to waste more money, especially when Michigan is one of those states on the verge of bankruptcy. What they obviously need is a law nearly impossible to enforce. What's next? No checking your map while driving? No using a GPS while driving? This boggles my mind.

Abso-bloody-lutely. This is 'Driving without due care and attention' in the UK and is an insta-fine and points on your license. If you cause an accident doing it, you can expect to lose your license.

"No using a GPS while driving?"

If it means taking your eyes off the road and both hands off the steering wheel to do it, yes again. If it is a quick press of a button akin to turning on a radio, changing gears or flicking on your headlights, no.

I've driven cross country (and other countries, really) many times, and never had a problem with looking at my wheel for half a second to read a map.

This is a moronic law because its unenforceable. The only time it IS enforceable is when someone gets in an accident and you find a game system or phone nearby, which is still not a great premise in court seeing as I drive with my phone on the seat under my leg.

Actually it is very enforcable. The police have dash-cams and film you on the phone or with the map in front of your face and that's that. A quick glance at a map isn't going to get you any trouble though if you really are not being distracted from the road ahead. As for your phone under your leg, not a problem. They can get access to your phone records to prove or disprove you were texting while driving.

Chuma, I've hung out with the UK police at the PEELE CENTER and know all their tricks. Trust me, the dash cam can't tell whether or not I'm on the phone. Half the time they can't differentiate between a piece of pizza or a large knife on your dashboard or in your hand.

As for the phone under the leg, a common thing police have claimed (UK and US) is that the phone was being used to text before the car accident or whatever happened, but the text wasn't sent and was deleted before they got to the scene. Sure, you could go to court and argue with the cop or bobby about whether you were breaking the law or not, but in the end that'll be more costly than just paying the ticket, even though the charges are false.

Strange how all those police camera action programs in the UK clearly show people driving along with mobile phones then eh?

And as for your analogy about the police saying the text was deleted, this goes into the realms of fantasy where thye prosecution come up with a case that is based entirely on supposition and that a judge will happily side with said police without any evidence whatsoever. Reality however is that you are wrong.

You do realize that for Police Camera Action programs (I'm assuming you're talking about TV shows similar to COPS in America) they often pick out a car that has the newest camera, often actually seperating the usual driver from it in favor of a more clean cut person with a more pressed uniform and more photogenic face, and in many instances (especially in America) they will have a higher resolution camera installed. That's why shows like COPS, police chase shows, etc seem to happen repeatedly in the same damn cities/counties/states (depending on if we're following Police, Sheriffs, or highway patrolmen), because these are the cities or counties that have a patrol car or two with high resolution cameras. Fact of the matter is, police love shows that host their more high-res dashboard cams because they are somewhat of a deterrent from crime. The average person will believe that ALL dashboard cams are that high-res. Really, very few are.

Also, I don't know if you know this, but in most court cases, judges will side with the police before they'll side with you. Theoretically, THE POLICE should be having to prove wrongdoing on your part, and you shouldn't have to prove a thing. However, it is more common that YOU, the citizen, will have to prove that THE POLICE did something improper. Some of the easiest things to disprove are Assured Clear Distance (this is the basic ticketing basis for any rear-end collision, basically it says that the driver didn't keep the suggested or safe distance from the back of the car in front of him), speeding tickets involving a radar gun (these have to be calibrated every week or two, but many officers don't do so, meaning you can get off scott free if you call their bullshit, or else you end up paying the ticket AND 40-100 dollars for the court costs, plus wasting an hour in a court room), and if you know what you're doing you can disprove parking violations too (in every parking area that has those damn machines that you have to feed change to, there's at least 4 that are broken. Park there. If they pick up your car, tell them where you were parked, say that you put the money in anyway, and demand the return of your car).

Also, my 'supposition' is based on my Doctorate in criminology, the many conferences I attend, the many court cases I've sat through (occasionally, I'll just go to the justice center and kill an hour before lunch with some colleagues watching traffic cases and domestic disputes, its funnier than hell really), all the cops I work with, all the cops who do research with me, all the cops who often bring their rifles (both work rifles and their personal rifles) to me for some minor work, etc, etc, etc. Of course, my knowledge of UK's police comes from two weeks I spent at the Peele center comparing their policing to ours. Basically, they're more about verbally controlling a situation, rather than using force, although I did watch an older officer handcuff my ex-football playing friend. Tons of fun, really.

You do realize that for Police Camera Action programs (I'm assuming you're talking about TV shows similar to COPS in America) they often pick out a car that has the newest camera, often actually seperating the usual driver from it in favor of a more clean cut person with a more pressed uniform and more photogenic face, and in many instances (especially in America) they will have a higher resolution camera installed. That's why shows like COPS, police chase shows, etc seem to happen repeatedly in the same damn cities/counties/states (depending on if we're following Police, Sheriffs, or highway patrolmen), because these are the cities or counties that have a patrol car or two with high resolution cameras. Fact of the matter is, police love shows that host their more high-res dashboard cams because they are somewhat of a deterrent from crime. The average person will believe that ALL dashboard cams are that high-res. Really, very few are.

Also, I don't know if you know this, but in most court cases, judges will side with the police before they'll side with you. Theoretically, THE POLICE should be having to prove wrongdoing on your part, and you shouldn't have to prove a thing. However, it is more common that YOU, the citizen, will have to prove that THE POLICE did something improper. Some of the easiest things to disprove are Assured Clear Distance (this is the basic ticketing basis for any rear-end collision, basically it says that the driver didn't keep the suggested or safe distance from the back of the car in front of him), speeding tickets involving a radar gun (these have to be calibrated every week or two, but many officers don't do so, meaning you can get off scott free if you call their bullshit, or else you end up paying the ticket AND 40-100 dollars for the court costs, plus wasting an hour in a court room), and if you know what you're doing you can disprove parking violations too (in every parking area that has those damn machines that you have to feed change to, there's at least 4 that are broken. Park there. If they pick up your car, tell them where you were parked, say that you put the money in anyway, and demand the return of your car).

Also, my 'supposition' is based on my Doctorate in criminology, the many conferences I attend, the many court cases I've sat through (occasionally, I'll just go to the justice center and kill an hour before lunch with some colleagues watching traffic cases and domestic disputes, its funnier than hell really), all the cops I work with, all the cops who do research with me, all the cops who often bring their rifles (both work rifles and their personal rifles) to me for some minor work, etc, etc, etc. Of course, my knowledge of UK's police comes from two weeks I spent at the Peele center comparing their policing to ours. Basically, they're more about verbally controlling a situation, rather than using force, although I did watch an older officer handcuff my ex-football playing friend. Tons of fun, really.

That's what they claim, but I think all they proved is that being required to perform mental exercises while driving and not being allowed to ignore the person you're talking to in order to concentrate on the road ahead can be as dangerous as driving drunk. Whether or not such findings are true of real-life conditions was not addressed to my satisfaction. It was one of the more disappointing Mythbuster investigations.

Texting, I think, is a different matter altogether. I support bans on texting while driving, and shudder to think that anyone would think gaming while driving is at all acceptable.

Remember, most driving laws have been on the books for decades. Most, if not all, were conceived before even the monster sized, carrying case "cell phones". Before Tv/movies in the car were only the stuff of spy fiction.

I'm not even sure if the driving laws were upgraded as the big, bulky "cell phones" were conceived.

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.

Wymorence: For me it just boils down to the fact that, even at a giant company, when a game comes out annually it just gives it a vibe of being rushed out the door. And god knows Unity sucked some major lemur with all its bugs...03/31/2015 - 4:22pm

PHX Corp: I launched my spotify account today, and I kinda went a little overboard with adding music03/31/2015 - 3:59pm

Sora-Chan: Con't. Games like AC are a pain to someone like me who likes to play games in order. So when a game gets too many releases too quickly, it puts me off. Only exceptions are games that have no interconnected underlying stories like the FF games.03/31/2015 - 2:53pm

Sora-Chan: Wikipedia has rarely let me down on matters like this. But yeah... AC needs a break.. like two.. or three... or eight years.03/31/2015 - 2:51pm

Conster: There's 9 already?! I think I played 1, 2, and the ones inbetween 2 and 3.03/31/2015 - 2:23pm

Sora-Chan: Con't There are now Nine... of just the main entries into the series. There are 13 more in the "other games" department.03/31/2015 - 2:15pm

Sora-Chan: I tried to get into AC. Was having a decent time with the first one, at which point they had already released three titles. Then a fourth came out... then a fifth... the wall kept growing before I could finish the first.03/31/2015 - 2:14pm

Daniel Lewis: I think ubisoft should give AC a break before it's milked to death,and i'm a big fan of the games03/31/2015 - 1:15pm

Daniel Lewis: The only thing said i disagree with is the final quote on Men's experiences are seen to be universal but women are gendered,though doesn't anita say that games with male protagonists are male power fantasies,so in turn both are gendered03/31/2015 - 1:08pm

Daniel Lewis: i found the video to be much better than any of the TvW series and it's about time the positive women are put in the spotlight03/31/2015 - 1:06pm

Daniel Lewis: So feministfrequency released a positive female character video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXmj2yJNUmQ03/31/2015 - 1:05pm

Daniel Lewis: I think the guy who made the direct leak said it was an april fools joke when a real one was announced03/31/2015 - 12:43pm

MaskedPixelante: No way Nintendo would let information like that get out. Remember, they shut down a memoir about the localization of Earthbound by enforcing a 20 year old NDA on the author.03/31/2015 - 12:42pm

james_fudge: Conster: the larger issue is that Ind. does not protect LGBTQ+ people under state law03/31/2015 - 12:11pm

PHX Corp: @MP I think it is confirmed(not an April Fools joke) http://mynintendonews.com/2015/03/31/nintendo-direct-confirmed-for-wednesday-april-1st/03/31/2015 - 12:00pm

Conster: Apparently Pence intends to amend SB101 so denying service isn't allowed - without explicitly protecting LGBT+ and while still allowing the many other things you can get away with now if it's motivated by your religious beliefs.03/31/2015 - 11:53am

MaskedPixelante: http://mynintendonews.com/2015/03/30/rumour-nintendo-direct-on-april-1st/ A supposed full leak of tomorrow's Nintendo Direct, so you can all laugh and laugh about how wrong it is.03/31/2015 - 11:35am

PHX Corp: http://kotaku.com/why-a-tekken-7-character-is-being-called-a-phoney-1694724959 Why a Tekken 7 Character Is Being Called a Phoney03/31/2015 - 10:08am